(15) “United States” means
A ) a Federal corporation;(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or(C) an instrumentality of the United
States

U.S Code

The USC has only existed since 1873.
Are you trying to say that everyone was a "sovereign" and no laws applied to anyone before the USC? No one was arrested, no one was tried, no one
was executed or imprisoned, in this country from 1776 until 1873?
This is just one point where the “freeman” stuff starts to fall apart.
There is no old law that allows you to worm your way out of being tried and sentenced by your state or country, and there is no magic legal loophole
that suddenly means no laws apply to you. The US Constitution expressly gives your federal and state law makers the right to both make and enforce
laws against you. Trying to say “hey your laws don't apply because reason X, and I took out a lean against my 'strawman' so I'm now
sovereign”, “The US is a corporation, and I'm no longer an employee”, etc... just doesn't fly in the real world.

I am looking through the site, and I see several people SAYING there have been multiple won cases, but no links to any decisions that state they have
actually won using these reasonings and methods. I am not convinced. Do you have any links to won cases?

(15) “United States” means
A ) a Federal corporation;(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or(C) an instrumentality of the United
States

U.S Code

The USC has only existed since 1873.
Are you trying to say that everyone was a "sovereign" and no laws applied to anyone before the USC? No one was arrested, no one was tried, no one was
executed or imprisoned, in this country from 1776 until 1873?
This is just one point where the “freeman” stuff starts to fall apart.
There is no old law that allows you to worm your way out of being tried and sentenced by your state or country, and there is no magic legal loophole
that suddenly means no laws apply to you. The US Constitution expressly gives your federal and state law makers the right to both make and enforce
laws against you. Trying to say “hey your laws don't apply because reason X, and I took out a lean against my 'strawman' so I'm now sovereign”,
“The US is a corporation, and I'm no longer an employee”, etc... just doesn't fly in the real world.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular
states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places
purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and
other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

It doesn't matter if the US has incorporated itself.
It doesn't matter if you believe that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified.
It doesn't matter if you think you can buy your strawman.
The congress has the power to levy and enforce both taxes and laws on you...
Period...

(15) “United States” means
A ) a Federal corporation;(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or(C) an instrumentality of the United
States

U.S Code

“The US is a corporation, and I'm no longer an employee”, etc... just doesn't fly in the real world.

About March 2014, Kevin Annett was a guest on Alfred Lambremont Webre radio show were he explained the entire Common Law's momentum obtained and what
their general plan contained:
(Paraphrasing)
1. Expedite training of Common Law Sheriff's so the arresting was all legal...mid-west has a ton going on.
2. issue "Stand-Down" orders on police agencies due the illegitimacy created by criminal leaders.
3. Hold new universally applied Constitution, Laws for the replacement "government".

The argument isnt about their ability to tax us or pass laws. The argument is about someone relieving them of duty because they aren't working in
our best interest. Of course they wont take themselves to trial. That means its up to people with the credetials and knowledge and connections such
as Gen Ham to hold them accountable. The congress and president will only keep passing laws that make them harder and harder to prosecute. How
exactly does one go about toppling a system that is rotten to its core? The president, the congress, the judiciary.....all out of control, all
abusing their authority, all taking money from corporations that dont have our best interests in mind. This could all be just one more epic fail, but
I hope its legit. Our goverment has been full of criminals for decades who are never held accountable. If nothing else I definitely will be keeping
an eye out to see how this develops.

originally posted by: Montana
I am looking through the site, and I see several people SAYING there have been multiple won cases, but no links to any decisions that state they have
actually won using these reasonings and methods. I am not convinced. Do you have any links to won cases?

There are none, as it is just nonsense. People have lost their houses trying the nonsense, even Heather, who started it lost her house. The
"trustees" are now drugged out in Morocco, trying to pull another scam, the QEG.

In the UK, we have this dumb as dishwater, Freeman thing as well and they like to claim the same things - namely they got away with offences using the
same tactics as your crowd.

They didn't.

They either got convicted in absentia or got hauled in front of the Judge by the Police with a warrant.

The one thing that really get's up my nose about these is they think they're really clever - they throw around silly things like "Admiralty Law"
or "that's Statute Law, I don't have to follow that, I follow Common Law" - which really just shows them up as not having a bloody clue what
they're talking about.

Just see the dude earlier in the thread thinking that "Common Law Sheriffs" even exist (I'm sure people think they are such, but they're not) and
that they would stand a hope in hell of arresting anyone, much less the Queen, without running foul of the law themselves - false imprisonment anyone,
just for starters?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.